quick question again.
I'm creating a recursive function that will look for elements in a array of "source" rules and apply those rules to an "target array" of rules if the "source" rule type is the same as the target character. Furthermore the function checks to see if the target character is in an array of symbols or not and adds it if it is not (and throws a few flags on the newly applied rule as well). This is all driven by a recursive call that uses a counter to determine how many iterations have passed and is used to determine the spot in the target array the new rule should be applied, so we don't overwrite.
I've put in a little debugging code to show the results too.
Here's the function itself:
//Recursively tack on any non terminal pointed elements
int recursiveTack(rule * inrule[], char target, rule * targetrule[],
int counter, char symbols[])
{
printf("Got into recursiveTack\n");
printf("target is %c\n", target);
printf("counter is %d", counter);
for (int k = 0; k < sizeof(inrule); k++)
{
if (inrule[k]->type == target)
{
//doublecheck to see if we're trying to overwrite
if (targetrule[counter]->used = true)
{
counter++;
}
targetrule[counter]->head = inrule[k]->head;
targetrule[counter]->type = inrule[k]->type;
targetrule[counter]->used = true;
//Check to see if the elements are new to the symbols table and need to be added
if (!contains(returnGotoChar(targetrule[counter]), symbols))
{
//If not then add the new symbol
addChar(returnGotoChar(targetrule[counter]), symbols);
//Also set the goto status of the rule
targetrule[counter]->needsGoto = true;
//Also set the rule's currentGotoChar
targetrule[counter]->currentGotoChar = returnGotoChar(
targetrule[counter]);
}
counter++;
//recursivly add elements from non terminal nodes
if (isNonTerm(targetrule[counter]))
{
char newTarget = returnGotoChar(targetrule[counter]);
counter = recursiveTack(inrule, newTarget, targetrule, counter,
symbols);
}
}
}
//return how many elements we've added
return counter;
}
Here's the call:
if(isNonTerm(I[i+first][second]))
{
printf("Confirmed non termainal\n");
printf("Second being passed: %d\n", second);
//Adds each nonterminal rule to the rules for the I[i+first] array
second = recursiveTack(I[i], targetSymbol, I[i+first], second, symbols[first]);
}
All the arrays being passed in have been initialized prior to this point.
However, the output I get indicates that the recursion is getting killed somewhere before it gets off the ground.
Output:
Second being passed: 0
Confirmed non termainal
Got into recursiveTack
target is E
Segmentation fault
Any help would be great, I've got the rest of the program available too if needs be it's around 700 lines including comments though. I'm pretty sure this is just another case of missing something simple, but let me know what you think.
for(int k = 0; k < sizeof(inrule); k++)
sizeof(inrule) is going to return the size of a pointer type (4 or 8). Probably not what you want. You need to pass the size of the arrays as parameters as well, if you are going to use these types of structures.
It would be better to use Standard Library containers like std::vector, though.
if(targetrule[counter]->used = true){
counter++;
}
// what is the guarantee that targetrule[counter] is actually valid? could you do a printf debug before and after it?
The biggest thing I see here is:
for(int k = 0; k < sizeof(inrule); k++)
This isn't going to do what you think. inrule is an array of pointers, so sizeof(inrule) is going to be the number of elements * sizeof(rule*). This could very quickly lead to running off the end of your array.
try changing that to:
for (int k = 0; k < sizeof(inrule) / sizeof(rule*); ++k)
Something else you might consider is an fflush(stdout); after your print statements. You're crashing while some output is still buffered so it's likely hiding where your crash is happening.
EDIT:
That won't work. If you had a function that did something like:
int x[10];
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(x) / sizeof(int); ++i) ...
It would work, but on the other side of the function call, the type degrades to int*, and sizeof(int*) is not the same as sizeof(int[10]). You either need to pass the size, or ... better yet, use vectors instead of arrays.
Related
While I was solving a problem in LeetCode, I found something very strange.
I have this line which I assume gives me a time limit exceeded error:
s.erase(i-k, k);
when I comment(//) this line, it doesn't show me time exceed error, but the strange part was, it has never executed even when i didn't comment it.
below is the entire code.
and Here is the problem link.
class Solution {
public:
string removeDuplicates(string s, int k) {
char prev = s[0];
int cnt = 1;
cnt = 1;
for(int i = 1; i < s.size() + 1; i++){
if(s[i] == prev){
cnt++;
} else {
if(cnt == k){
// when input is "abcd" it never comes to this scope
// which is impossible to run erase function.
s.erase(i-k, k);
i = 0;
}
if(i >= s.size()) break;
cnt = 1;
prev = s[i];
}
}
return s;
}
};
When Input is "abcd", it never even go to the if scope where 'erase' function is in.
Although 'erase' function never run, it still affect on the time complexity, and I can't get the reason.
Does anyone can explain this? or is this just problem of LeetCode?
Many online contest servers report Time Exceeding when program encounters critical error (coding bug) and/or crashes.
For example error of reading out of bounds of array. Or dereferencing bad (junk) pointers.
Why Time Exceeded. Because with critical error program can hang up and/or crash. Meaning it also doesn't deliver result in time.
So I think you have to debug your program to find all coding errors, not spending your time optimizing algorithm.
Regarding this line s.erase(i-k, k); - it may crash/hang-up when i < k, then you have negative value, which is not allowed by .erase() method. When you get for example i - k equal to -1 then size_t type (type of first argument of erase) will overflow (wrap around) to value 18446744073709551615 which is defnitely out of bounds, and out of memory border, hence your program may crash and/or hang. Also erase crashes when there is too many chars deleted, i.e. for erase s.erase(a, b) you have to watch that a + b <= s.size(), it is not controlled by erase function.
See documentation of erase method, and don't put negative values as arguments to this method. Check that your algorithm never has negative value i.e. never i < k when calling s.erase(i-k, k);, also never i-k + k > s.size(). To make sure there is no program crash you may do following:
int start = std::min(std::max(0, i-k), int(s.size()));
int num = std::min(k, std::max(0, int(s.size()) - start));
s.erase(start, num);
I'm asking myself if it is safe to use i+1 to check if the next number is the same as current... Example :
int search(int el, int* a, int n) {
if(a == NULL && n<0)
{
return NULL;
}
for(int i=0; i<n; i++)
{
if((a[i] == el )&& (a[i+1] != el)) // here I check next element
{
return i; // if I find it, return a position.
}
}
return -1; // else return -1
}
If we have an array with length 4, then a[i+1] will be passed an array length, but program will still work.
No, accessing elements out of bounds is Undefined Behavior.
Your program may "seem" to work, but you cannot expect anything out of it. It could work on your machine, and crash on another one. Or it could work on all machines now, but not tomorrow. You should check if the index is out-of-bounds before using the subscript operator.
You may consider changing your cycle so that it never accesses out-of-bounds elements:
for (int i = 0; i < n - 1; i++)
// ^^^^^
Then, you would have to take care of the last element in the array separately, as a special case.
That's not correct, when i reaches its last value (n-1) you check the value of a nonexistent element (the C standard allows you to have a pointer to one-after-last element, but not to dereference it).
You can fix your code like this:
if((a[i] == el ) && ((i == n-1) || (a[i+1] != el)))
If n is the last element in the array, then i + 1 is safe in this case. If n is the number of elements in the array, i + 1 may appear to work most of the time, but it is not safe.
In that case, you're accessing an element outside the bounds of the array, which may do anything from giving you incorrect results to crashing your program. Most of the time it will appear to work, though, making the problem very hard to debug when it happens.
It is not clear to me what you're asking. Even if array access is expensive, accessing both a[i] and a[i+1] remains of O(N) complexity. What you can't do is adding complexity that's based on i (for example an additional loop from 0 to i), or modifying i (for example decrementing it based on some condition).
The problem, as others have already pointed out, is that the last element is compared to a nonexistent datum: either you'll get an error and a possible crash, or the program will appear to be working - and actually work most of the time - until the time where that unknown and possibly random last-and-one item will trigger the comparison, and yield an unexpected result.
You should check that the array size is at least 1 (that ought to be a special case anyway, can't run a compare on a single element!) and then loop only up to n-1. Or you could save the previous value in a temporary variable; depending on the platform, this will be a (possibly much faster) register, or a (possibly much slower) stack location. In most cases I'd just state my intention of comparing with the next element, as you did, and let the compiler sort it out.
No.
int main(void)
{
char pumpkin[8];
int a[4];
int i, p;
a[0] = 3760;
a[1] = 100001;
a[2] = 595959;
a[3] = 1886221680;
pumpkin[0] = 'p';
pumpkin[1] = 'u';
pumpkin[2] = 'm';
pumpkin[3] = 'p';
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
p = search(a[i], a, 4);
if (p >= 0)
printf("Found it at position %d: %d.\n", p, a[i]);
else
printf("Value not found.\n");
}
return 0;
}
In my machine:
$ gcc -std=c11 -o boundserror boundserror.c
$ ./boundserror
Found it at position 0: 3760.
Found it at position 1: 100001.
Found it at position 2: 595959.
Value not found.
What happened ? Compiler wrote value 1886221680 both in a[3] and where a[4] would be if it existed. About the program working on your machine: read about the works on my machine concept.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/the-works-on-my-machine-certification-program.html
I've created a program to solve Cryptarithmetics for a class on Data Structures. The professor recommended that we utilize a stack consisting of linked nodes to keep track of which letters we replaced with which numbers, but I realized an integer could do the same trick. Instead of a stack {A, 1, B, 2, C, 3, D, 4} I could hold the same info in 1234.
My program, though, seems to run much more slowly than the estimation he gave us. Could someone explain why a stack would behave much more efficiently? I had assumed that, since I wouldn't be calling methods over and over again (push, pop, top, etc) and instead just add one to the 'solution' that mine would be faster.
This is not an open ended question, so do not close it. Although you can implement things different ways, I want to know why, at the heart of C++, accessing data via a Stack has performance benefits over storing in ints and extracting by moding.
Although this is homework, I don't actually need help, just very intrigued and curious.
Thanks and can't wait to learn something new!
EDIT (Adding some code)
letterAssignments is an int array of size 26. for a problem like SEND + MORE = MONEY, A isn't used so letterAssignments[0] is set to 11. All chars that are used are initialized to 10.
answerNum is a number with as many digits as there are unique characters (in this case, 8 digits).
int Cryptarithmetic::solve(){
while(!solved()){
for(size_t z = 0; z < 26; z++){
if(letterAssignments[z] != 11) letterAssignments[z] = 10;
}
if(answerNum < 1) return NULL;
size_t curAns = answerNum;
for(int i = 0; i < numDigits; i++){
if(nextUnassigned() != '$') {
size_t nextAssign = curAns % 10;
if(isAssigned(nextAssign)){
answerNum--;
continue;
}
assign(nextUnassigned(), nextAssign);
curAns /= 10;
}
}
answerNum--;
}
return answerNum;
}
Two helper methods in case you'd like to see them:
char Cryptarithmetic::nextUnassigned(){
char nextUnassigned = '$';
for(int i = 0; i < 26; i++) {
if(letterAssignments[i] == 10) return ('A' + i);
}
}
void Cryptarithmetic::assign(char letter, size_t val){
assert('A' <= letter && letter <= 'Z'); // valid letter
assert(letterAssignments[letter-'A'] != 11); // has this letter
assert(!isAssigned(val)); // not already assigned.
letterAssignments[letter-'A'] = val;
}
From the looks of things the way you are doing things here is quite inefficiant.
As a general rule try to have the least amount of for loops possible since each one will slow down your implementation greatly.
for instance if we strip all other code away, your program looks like
while(thing) {
for(z < 26) {
}
for(i < numDigits) {
for(i < 26) {
}
for(i < 26) {
}
}
}
this means that for each while loop you are doing ((26+26)*numDigits)+26 loop operations. Thats assuming isAssigned() does not use a loop.
Idealy you want:
while(thing) {
for(i < numDigits) {
}
}
which i'm sure is possible with changes to your code.
This is why your implementation with the integer array is much slower than an implementation using the stack which does not use the for(i < 26) loops (I assume).
In Answer to your original question however, storing an array of integers will always be faster than any struct you can come up with simply because there are more overheads involved in assigning the memory, calling functions, etc.
But as with everything, implementation is the key difference between a slow program and a fast program.
The problem is that by counting you are considering also repetitions, when may be the problem asks to assign a different number to each different letter so that the numeric equation holds.
For example for four letters you are testing 10*10*10*10=10000 letter->number mappings instead of 10*9*8*7=5040 of them (the bigger is the number of letters and bigger becomes the ratio between the two numbers...).
The div instruction used by the mod function is quite expensive. Using it for your purpose can easily be less efficient than a good stack implementation. Here is an instruction timings table: http://gmplib.org/~tege/x86-timing.pdf
You should also write unit tests for your int-based stack to make sure that it works as intended.
Programming is actually trading memory for time and vice versa.
Here you are packing data into integer. You spare memory but loose time.
Speed of course depends on the implementation of stack. C++ is C with classes. If you are not using classes it's basically C(as fast as C).
const int stack_size = 26;
struct Stack
{
int _data[stack_size];
int _stack_p;
Stack()
:_stack_size(0)
{}
inline void push(int val)
{
assert(_stack_p < stack_size); // this won't be overhead
// unless you compile debug version(-DNDEBUG)
_data[_stack_p] = val;
}
inline int pop()
{
assert(_stack_p > 0); // same thing. assert is very useful for tracing bugs
return _data[--_stack_p]; // good hint for RVO
}
inline int size()
{
return _stack_p;
}
inline int val(int i)
{
assert(i > 0 && i < _stack_p);
return _data[i];
}
}
There is no overhead like vtbp. Also pop() and push() are very simple so they will be inlined, so no overhead of function call. Using int as stack element also good for speed because int is guaranteed to be of best suitable size for processor(no need for alignment etc).
I'm making a C++ game which requires me to initialize 36 numbers into a vector. You can't initialize a vector with an initializer list, so I've created a while loop to initialize it faster. I want to make it push back 4 of each number from 2 to 10, so I'm using an int named fourth to check if the number of the loop is a multiple of 4. If it is, it changes the number pushed back to the next number up. When I run it, though, I get SIGABRT. It must be a problem with fourth, though, because when I took it out, it didn't give the signal.
Here's the program:
for (int i; i < 36;) {
int fourth = 0;
fourth++;
fourth%=4;
vec.push_back(i);
if (fourth == 0) {
i++;
}
}
Please help!
You do not initialize i. Use for (int i = 0; i<36;). Also, a new variable forth is allocated on each iteration of the loop body. Thus the test fourth==0 will always yield false.
I want to make it push back 4 of each number from 2 to 10
I would use the most straight forward approach:
for (int value = 2; value <= 10; ++value)
{
for (int count = 0; count < 4; ++count)
{
vec.push_back(value);
}
}
The only optimization I would do is making sure that the capacity of the vector is sufficient before entering the loop. I would leave other optimizations to the compiler. My guess is, what you gain by omitting the inner loop, you lose by frequent modulo division.
You did not initialize i, and you are resetting fourth in every iteration. Also, with your for loop condition, I do not think it will do what you want.
I think this should work:
int fourth = 0;
for (int i = 2; i<=10;) {
fourth++;
fourth%=4;
vec.push_back(i);
if (fourth==0) {
i++;
}
}
I've been able to create a static array declaration and pass that array into the vector at initialization without issue. Pretty clean too:
const int initialValues[36] = {0,1,2...,35};
std::vector foo(initialValues);
Works with constants, but haven't tried it with non const arrays.
Hey all, I'm trying to write a sort function but am having trouble figuring out how to initialize a value, and making this function work as a generic template. The sort works by:
Find a pair =(ii,jj)= with a minimum value = ii+jj = such at A[ii]>A[jj]
If such a pair exists, then
swap A[ii] and A[jj] else
break;
The function I have written is as follows:
template <typename T>
void sort(T *A, int size)
{
T min =453;
T temp=0;
bool swapper = false;
int index1 = 0, index2 = 0;
for (int ii = 0; ii < size-1; ii++){
for (int jj = ii + 1; jj < size; jj++){
if((min >= (A[ii]+A[jj])) && (A[ii] > A[jj])){
min = (A[ii]+A[jj]);
index1 = ii;
index2 = jj;
swapper = true;
}
}
}
if (!swapper)
return;
else
{
temp = A[index1];
A[index1] = A[index2];
A[index2] = temp;
sort(A,size);
}
}
This function will successfully sort an array of integers, but not an array of chars. I do not know how to properly initialize the min value for the start of the comparison. I tried initializing the value by simply adding the first two elements of the array together (min = A[0] + A[1]), but it looks to me like for this algorithm it will fail. I know this is sort of a strange type of sort, but it is practice for a test, so thanks for any input.
most likely reason it fails, is because char = 453 does not produce 453 but rather different number, depending what char is (signed versus unsigned). your immediate solution would be to use numerical_limits, http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/std/limits/numeric_limits/
you may also need to think about design, because char has small range, you are likely to overflow often when adding two chars.
The maximum value of any type is std::numeric_limits<T>::max(). It's defined in <limits>.
Also, consider a redesign. This is not a good algorithm. And I would make sure I knew what I was doing before calling my sort function recursively.
I haven't put too much time reading your algorithm, but as an alternative to std::numeric_limits, you can use the initial element in your array as the initial minimum value. Then you don't have to worry about what happens if you call the function with a class that doesn't specialize std::numeric_limits, and thus can't report a maximum value.